In this issue we begin we will discuss three papers not covered by the editor of the special topics section.
In the first, Gorbunov suggests a method of refining results achieved from a vector space model search. After the cosine measure is computed as a relevance function and the documents ranked, searcher preferences are
solicited as to the importance of author and searcher ideas conforming, the importance of searcher concurrence with majority users, the importance of little known documents, and the importance of topical closeness.
These are used to form assertions about seven criteria of relevance in document frequency, number of links, presence of terms in metadata, presence in the title, presence in special zones of the document, distance
between searched for words in the document, and evenness of the distribution of searched for words. These assertions may be expressed as constraint conditions to produce an objective function to re-rank the documents,
thus providing a ranking more reflective of the searcher's needs than majority opinion based on links or citations.

Egghe and Rao are able to present evidence that frequency distributions of author
productivity, where productivity is fractionally assigned from multiple author papers, are a consequence of Lotka's law rather than exceptions to it. Occurrences of fractional scores will be influenced by low frequency
of papers with a higher number of authors, and the higher frequency of papers with a low number of authors, while multiple combinations of papers with different numbers of authors can produce the same score. Calculation
of the fractional frequency distribution is very difficult since any positive rational number is a possible frequency and the shapes of simulated and of empirically derived fractional distributions have been shown to be
quite irregular. By grouping data and allowing for only a limited number of fractional scores, an analytical formula is produced for the probability of each allowed score, which nicely fits the grouped empirical data.

789

The Impact of the Internet on Public Library Use An Analysis of the Current Consumer Market for Library and Internet Services
George D'Elia, Corinne Jorgensen, Joseph Woelfel, and Eleanor Jo RodgerPublished online 30 May 2002

D'Elia et alia, segment their
population of study into six segments those who use the library, have access to the Internet and use the Internet; those who use the library, have access to the Internet and do not use the Internet, those who use the
library, and do not have access to the Internet; those who do not use the library, have access to the Internet and use the Internet, those who do not use the library, have access to the Internet and do not use the
Internet; and those who do not use the library, and have no access to the Internet. A random telephone survey used screening questions that allowed this segmentation of the sample. A questionnaire was developed using
focus groups of members of the segments, and previous questionnaires, and was tested in a series of three pilot surveys. The questions varied depending upon the segment identified for each sample call of the 3,097 made.

Internet access at home was available to 47%, and at the library 37.5%, while only 4.3% had access only at home and 0.5% only at the library. The Internet is used by 53.2% and both library and Internet are
used by 40%. Seventy-five percent of Internet users also use the library and 60% of library users use the Internet. Use of both media is inversely related to age, and directly related to educational attainment and
household income. More males than females use the Internet and more females than males use the library. The ranked order of rating of service characteristics of the library was significantly and inversely related to the
ranked order of the service characteristics of the Internet, and the Internet was rated superior to the library in 10 of 16 service characteristics. Library non-use is attributed to lack of time, and a preference for
owning and retaining materials.

Information Architecture in JASIST Just Where Did We Come From?Andrew DillonPublished online 17 May 2002

In the present issue is a collection of articles representing a
spectrum of perspectives from academics and practitioners, practical and theoretical, all offering one angle on issues collected under the label information architecture. In it you will find considerations (not
definitive statements) of important contemporary issues that are being shaped even as we think, from curricular (Latham) to method (Large et al.); from conception (Haverty) to case (Hauck and Weisband); from theory
(Toms) to practice (Burke); with data (Cunliffe) and speculation (Rosenfeld). Even this carving up is partial, because several articles cross several of these divides.

The articles are not the definitive
word on IA; it would be impossible to expect any collection to be such given the dynamism of the field. But these articles do offer a valuable snapshot. This is IA as seen by a variety of thinkers in the early 21st
century. No doubt all will think again about these issues and evolve a more refined perspective, but these articles do represent, in current parlance, a sense of Big IA and what the field covers. Drawing in people from
outside the normal community of ASIST conference or IA summit attendees, I believe these articles represent a landmark effort, and there is no doubt in my mind that IA represents an exciting and important mix of ideas
and perspectives that can serve to bridge traditional divisions in the information studies disciplines. Regardless of how the field eventually becomes labeled, the issues IA has brought into relief must be addressed,
and in so doing, such addressing will help shape the future of information science. Predicting the future is a thankless task, but the opportunity to stand still and survive as a practitioner or theoretician has passed
- the information domain will be as much the province of architecture as the physical world, and those that will shape the new spaces will impact humankind on a level that will prove beyond the reach of physical
architecture. This is only the beginning - get involved.